Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Polk SE, Öhman F, Hassenstab J, König A, Papp KV, Schöll M, Berron D.. NPJ digital medicine, 2025-05-10
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Characterizing subtle cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is difficult using traditional neuropsychological assessments. Remote and unsupervised digital assessments can improve scalability, measurement reliability, and ecological validity, enabling the capture of subtle changes. We evaluate such tools for use in preclinical AD, or cognitively unimpaired individuals with abnormal levels of AD pathology. We screened 1904 reports for studies remotely assessing cognition in preclinical AD samples. Twenty-three tools were identified, and their usability, reliability, and validity, including construct and criterion validity based on in-person neuropsychological and Aβ/tau measures, was reported. We present a necessary update to a rapidly evolving field, following our previous review (Öhman et al., 2021) and address open questions of feasibility and reliability of remote testing in older adults. Future applications of such tools are discussed, including longitudinal monitoring of cognition, scalable case finding, and individualized prognostics in both clinical trials and healthcare contexts.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Polk, S. E., Öhman, F., Hassenstab, J., König, A., Papp, K. V., Schöll, M., et al. (2025). A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01583-5
Vancouver
Polk SE, Öhman F, Hassenstab J, König A, Papp KV, Schöll M, et al. A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. NPJ digital medicine. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01583-5. PMID: 40348870.
BibTeX
@article{polk2025-40348870,
author = {Polk, S. E. and Öhman, F. and Hassenstab, J. and König, A. and Papp, K. V. and Schöll, M. and Berron, D.},
title = {{A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41746-025-01583-5},
pmid = {40348870},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01583-5}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We evaluate such tools for use in preclinical AD, or cognitively unimpaired individuals with abnormal levels of AD pathology.
- We screened 1904 reports for studies remotely assessing cognition in preclinical AD samples.
- Twenty-three tools were identified, and their usability, reliability, and validity, including construct and criterion validity based on in-person neuropsychological and Aβ/tau measures, was reported.
- We present a necessary update to a rapidly evolving field, following our previous review (Öhman et al., 2021) and address open questions of feasibility and reliability of remote testing in older adults.
- Future applications of such tools are discussed, including longitudinal monitoring of cognition, scalable case finding, and individualized prognostics in both clinical trials and healthcare contexts.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NPJ digital medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40348870) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.